Back at the hat building, there is still more Tangled animation up in the hallway and it looks damn good to me. The crew is sold on the picture and is working longer hours to hit the schedule (I'm sure there are dissenters who believe in it less, but I find few of them.) ...
The concern, spoken and unspoken, is what happens when the picture wraps? As one artist explained to me:
"DreamWorks seems to be a well-oiled machine with lots of projects in work, but here they like to have 'director-driven' projects. They want to have a director developing a film that he's passionate about, they don't want to develop something and assign somebody.
"But face it. The director-driven feature doesn't always work. Pixar cancelled Newt, they didn't go ahead and 'fix' it. They stopped it.
"Disney needs more stuff in the pipeline. Chris Buck is developing a new project. A couple of other directors are working on stuff. Ron and John are pitching different hand-drawn projects to Lasseter. But after Pooh and Tangled are done, we've got a gap in the flow of features. I don't see what's ready to go into production after the current two ..."
Which explains why people on the production crew appear concerned about what they might be doing after the current CG and hand-drawn features are wrapped up.
Posts
36 comments:
This is true, if Disney does see some success with Tangled (ew, I even hate typing that), Which I think it will from what I have seen, they will have nothing to show when people are wanting more.
About Tangled. The animation is beautiful. But when they zoom in, the characters and backgrounds look VERY GENERIC!. I do not understand why they are dropping the most incredible premise in the recent history of the animation. It was very anticipated like a milestone for the general press and the animation world. A Moving-Painting-Rapunzel-Movie could be the difference between the ART of Disney and all the other studios. (Bolt was very disappointing when they made the same). I don’t know where the novelty is if this is looking like a Tinkerbell movie but better animated. Make it look unique. You know how!
Please MORE PINOCCHIO, less Shrek!
PS: Surely Pixar will have its own movie with painterly look in the near future, of course... the "always experimental and praised” Pixar crew.
Look---no one CARES what a film "looks like" or even if the animation is good. The "painterly" thing has been proven time and again to be a distraction to the audience when it comes to long form storytelling.
As soon as Disney can tell a good story, they can start focusing on "looks."
And, I happen to think the film looks spectacular.
"This is true, if Disney does see some success with Tangled (ew, I even hate typing that), Which I think it will from what I have seen, they will have nothing to show when people are wanting more."
Right now I totally agree with you. If they stick with their current schedule. However I wouldn't be surprised if they rushed something into Development and pushed it for a 2012 release between Winnie the Pooh and Reboot Ralph. Disney has the resources. They just need to put them into good use.
>>>Look---no one CARES what a film "looks like" or even if the animation is good. The "painterly" thing has been proven time and again to be a distraction to the audience when it comes to long form storytelling.<<<
They had the chance to tell a good story with Bolt and Frog, but both movies looked very unappealing and generic (in the same way both stories).Rapunzel looks like a living toy, and the hair is really very plastic, horrendous. Why? Is she a human Toy Story 3 character? All the movies nowadays look photorealistic (CGI , CGI-live action, mocap)Give me a break! Walt always cared about graphic innovation, now his films are timeless.
The mantra “story, story story” at least at Disney, has failed (literally and with the box office success). It’s a good idea to make the difference with superb art! Be original... not the bastard brother of Pixar!.
What, is Dreamworks not a director-driven studio? I'm not sure I understand. I was under the impression that directors drove the stories once they were in production?
I think seeing Tangled will be like buying a Spice Girls CD, everyone will do it but noone will admit it.
No one pays to see "superb art" without stories and characters they can care about. I have never read a series of more ignorant comments. Visual innovation without a story to support is ridiculous. Form follows function.
"...once they are in production." But to be "director driven" means the directors COME UP WITH THE MOVIE IDEA. That's the basic difference. That doesn't mean, of course, that the director will stay on the film. DW, Disney, and Pixar films go through lots of directors.
All you people really have no idea what you're in for when this movie comes out.
Truly.
I do. I've seen it. It's very good (although the songs make me miss the wit of Howard Ashman. A LOT.)
To get a great story is important, this is indisputable. I guess he's talking about the Pixar touch.. The last two Disney movies were less than innovative stories well told, with recycled visuals and characters, all of them supervised and approved by John Lasseter.
It would be nice to see some Product Differentiation at Disney, at least aesthetically, that’s all.
Bolt had a solid story. It wasn't groundbreaking by any means, but it was solid.
Most of you are missing the bigger point here. I'm sure the visuals will be good enough (remember geat visuals won't make a bad movie work) and I'll even temporarliy concede the story might be good.
BUT the bigger problem is, if as everyone 'in the know' calims that this is a classic Disney fairytale and not a Shrek wannabe, does anyone want to see a classic fairytale? Even in CG?
The most obvious answer is what all the studios - including Disney - came to years ago is NO. And won' that put another goose egg in Lasseter's win column (has he had any successes at Disney since becoming the new Walt?)
But suppose this film is a hit as a classic fairytale where PatF was a flop as a 'classic' fairytale...? Then won't that tell Disney's head honchos that 2D is still a problem and that CG remains superior...?
Either way, win or lose, I don't look forward to the aftermath...
Here's the thing: Princess and the Frog wasnt a "classic Disney" fairy tale. There's something about a "faraway land" story that intrigues people. (think Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, even The Lion King) Louisiana doesnt really have the same...shall we say, pull.
And Princess and the Frog had contemporary music and a more modern story line (which wasnt that compelling). Audiences still have a hunger for Broadway style musicals. (Mama Mia was a huge success, 600mil worldwide)
So, saying audiences dont want "classic Disney" fairy tales is a misnomer: there hasnt really been one since The Lion King (Pocahontas might count?)
The great thing about Tangled is that it delivers on all counts. Theres great music, a very compelling story, real peril, lots of humor, and some intense action. So its great for people who love classic disney fairy tales, and its also great for those who dont. (I saw the screening, in case you wonder)
"Audiences still have a hunger for Broadway style musicals. (Mama Mia was a huge success, 600mil worldwide)"
I beg to disagree. The musical "Nine" ( not to be confused with the animated "9") totally bombed at the box office. And it had an incredible cast. From the same director who did "Chicago", no less.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nine.htm
"Mamma Mia" had something far better going for it. ABBA! Plenty of baby boomers still love this bands music.
No, I'm not convinced audiences want to see broadway musicals."PaTF" did so-so at the box office, not great, not too bad either.
And as far as the designs are concerned, I do care what the designs look like. It's a chance to come up with great, unforgetable character design, and yet, they keep coming out with bland, generic designs. It's true they are appealing, but they're also generic. Think "Shere Kahn", one of the best designs ever. Disney has never hit that level of design since.
rufus
I beg to disagree. The musical "Nine" ( not to be confused with the animated "9") totally bombed at the box office. And it had an incredible cast. From the same director who did "Chicago", no less.
(In fact, given the classy production it was rather a shame that the songs happened to be unmemorable, the story depressing, and the hero an immature self-indulgent jerk...
But then, as with PatF--despite that one'ss utter lack of memorable storyline, due to mercifully throwing out a non-classic book that had even less story and atmosphere--we just blamed Avatar and the Chipmunks, like everybody else that year.)
People seem to be mistaking "genre" for "good and/or popular film."
How stupid to believe that if a movie is a particular genre, or features a particular type of character (or animal, or object, or has songs, etc.), that is will automatically fail (or succeed, for that matter).
Pixar keeps proving that it really doesn't matter what the story is about, but rather how you tell it. I firmly believe a great storyteller could create a movie about a piece of dog poop, but would find a way to tell that story in an exciting, compelling, interesting way.
You could have taken all the various elements and characters from Toy Story, or Incredibles, or Up, or How to Train Your Dragon, or any successful animated film, and created an amazingly awful, TERRIBLE movie with them. It is all in how you craft your story, the choices you make with it, and how you weave those characters through it. This trailer isn't going to give you enough information by itself to lead you to any conclusion on how the movie is, good or bad.
Whether Tangled succeeds or fails will have nothing to do with whether it's a fairytale, features a princess, or a talking animal, or even has "familiar" looking character designs. It will live or die by how they use those characters and settings to create a compelling story, and then enticing audiences to want to see it. We'll find out more as they slowly give out more information.
You all sound like producers, trying to control and predict the success of failure of a film based on generic factors alone.
The attempt to predict and take advantage of "trends" at the box office is the Holy Grail of film production, and it's just as mythical.
The honest facts are that even on Broadway itself, many Broadway musicals flop. Sequels of hit movies flop all the time, even though they are obviously the same genre and often have the same cast as the original. Brilliant directors often follow successful movies with failures. In film, the past does not predict the future. Any film can fail and any kind of film can succeed, at any time.
I saw Nine on Broadway with Raul Julia in the lead, if I remember correctly. Julia's work was always fun to watch, but the show was highly forgettable. I also saw Titanic, the Musical, (no kidding), by the same creative team. It was horrible.
Chicago was better material all around, so, duh, it made a better movie, (given similar production values as Nine).
If you entertain people, they will come. If they come, they will make more. If they make more, we will work.
The "big picture" here is that the Tangled trailer was terrible. (Both in the visual and story department.) It combines elements both from Shrek (in the "fractured fairy tale) and Pixar (modern and action-packed, with 70% of the emphasis on the male gender). How hard is it for Disney to make a Disney film again?
My only hope for this film is the music, which had better be better than average.
Wait, um... getting back to the original post, what happens after Tangled? Disney let go some of their most talented people recently, and as Tangled comes to an end the remaining talented people???
You thought the visuals of Tangled were terrible?
You lost all credit there buddy
- "Wait, um... getting back to the original post, what happens after Tangled? Disney let go some of their most talented people recently, and as Tangled comes to an end the remaining talented people???"
There are probably things in the works - I bet they're just not sharing it yet.
They've been so beat down so much lately that has to have some effect on them. They're hungry and want to make great films again.
There are probably things in the works - I bet they're just not sharing it yet.
Joe Jump has gotten a "Reboot", and Musker & Clements continue to drop vague teases in the press whether "Scaredy Cat" will come back from limbo.
With FA back open and RapTangled delivered, seems to be a cleaning-up time, to grant amnesty to all those "lost" Eisner-refugee projects that never had time or chance to find a sellable hook.
I think they are going to test the audiences first with Tangled.The biggest problem with TPatF was the black lead. The people is fed up with the “American Black Royalty”, you know what I mean. Sad but true.
Nonymous @ 3:55...wow. An idiot and a racist..you know what I mean?
In regards to Bill who seesm to think that a good story will always make a film a success...sorry. You're wrong - though it sure would be nice if you weren't. People will avoid a film for any number of reasons including "particular genre, or features a particular type of character (or animal, or object, or has songs, etc)".
They've been many, many good movies with good stories that have bombed at the theater and many bad films with bad stories that haven't.
So, yeah, if the public isn't interested in princess films than Tangled could very well bomb even if it were the Citizen Kane of princess movies. I'm not saying it will, but you have to understand that for any number of reasons it could bomb - or it could be a success even if it stinks to high heaven.
Sad fact of life.
First of all, going back to the original question, what will happen after Pooh,,,well, i thought Ron and John were starting with Ramayana, at least thats what i read a few days ago in jimhillmedia. And Snow Queen as far as i know, wasn't canceled but shelved. So, ther's still hope for the next years.
Now, about the trailer, visuals were stunning, best backgrounds in a cgi production ever. Animation was well, fucking incredible. In the scene where rapunzel punches flynn there is some very intresting scuash ans stretch going one that we haven't seen in any cgi film. And the charecters where prety good too. Rapunzel is quite beautiful, and Flynn is ok. I mean, they are the tipical disney characters, what where you expecting ?. Althought i would love to see a change in the style some day
I also read that JohnK said that Flynn was gay...people like him makes me sick, not gay people, but homofobic people and what in argentina we call "MALALECHE". I dont know how to describe it but i think you get the point.
Anyway, i think this movie will be ok, to sad that the orginal concept wasnt considered, but hey, Disney animation is run buy people that want nothing more than money, thats not new.
Sorry for my horrible english
Milk illness?
Hahahahah no, that would be a literal translation, i really don't know how to describe it. But more like people who feel envy about other peoples work, and for that, they try to "sabotage" theire work talking really bad about it and don't seeing in it positive things.
But again that is not exactly the description. Look, here it is the link and see what i am talking about
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-it-possible-to-make-whole-animated.html
He makes a really stupid comparison.
All this over a f**kin teaser trailer.
Ah. Here in the US we call it "Sour Grapes"
Bad Milk = Sour Grapes...haha.
By the way I totally agree. Anyone who says it is visually terrible or has to rag on it THAT hard is clearly insecure and (deep down somewhere) impressed/jealous. Because damn, that was some well-executed CG animation.
It really is amazing to see all these armchair movie moguls who know exactly which movies will be winners and which will be loosers. With insight like that no wonder you are all making the big bucks. No small feat to be able to predict so precisely the wants of the fickle moviegoing public. Simply amazing!
- "First of all, going back to the original question, what will happen after Pooh,,,well, i thought Ron and John were starting with Ramayana, at least thats what i read a few days ago in jimhillmedia. And Snow Queen as far as i know, wasn't canceled but shelved. So, ther's still hope for the next years."
Jim Hill doesn't know sh*t. You should never believe anything that guy writes.
^Agreed. He wrote a puff piece about the Muppets a few weeks back that, as I have reason to know, is complete BS. If Jim says "nice day", check it out first.
^Also his recent article on "Pooh" was hugely inaccurate.
But who makes the trailers??? Those guys need help... The princess and the frog trailer was horrible! It showed you the entire movie. By just looking at it you learned that:
- Tiana WAS not a princess (you see her as a poor little girl; working in a restaurant; using the public transport)...
- A "witch doctor" transformed Naveen into a frog.
- You learned what happened AFTER the kiss!!! (the movie's biggest plot turn revealed in the trailer!!!!)
- You saw the scene when they transform back into humans!!!!!
- You even saw them getting married!!!
What the hell?!!!
First you have a trailer that shows you the entire movie, and then you have one that shows you nothing (and even manages to make the movie look as silly as a Disney Channel show (Wizards of Weaverly, Sunny with a chance, and the list goes on and on and on)... Or perhaps that's the demographic they're aming for...
There is no such thing as a certain way to make a successful film. Oh sure, there are certain key things that will make your film more generic and therefore more easily accessible to a wide audience which well improve its chances of selling (the whole four quadrant concept) but there is also a distinct difference between a movie that is good and a movie that sells. Sometimes they're the same and sometimes they're not.
Its impossible to judge how a movie will do off a trailer. The trailer is meant to make you interested in seeing it (the Tangles trailer doesn't do this but I wanted see Tangled well before the trailer anyway) it can't be used to judge the quality of a film. That would mean taking a story that takes anywhere from 90 - 120 minutes to tell and condensing it down into 3 minutes. There is a lot more to any good movie that just its premise, and the premise is all that a good trailer can give you. Premise is not the same as plot/ story.
I personally loved Princess and the Frog, it was fun. I liked its look, I liked its cast, and I like its music. It wasn't the best Disney movie or anything but it was a film that reminded me of why Disney Animation has always been my all time favorite studio.
Post a Comment